Like its predecessor, the Nikon D4 looks as if it’s going to be an incredibly impressive camera. Nikon has looked to its professional user-base and tried to work out what it needed to add or adjust on a camera that just a couple of years ago represented the best they were capable of. The result is a camera with few big changes but a extensive series of small improvements.

The biggest change is, of course, the improvement in video capabilities. Given the increasing demand for video footage from professional photographers, and the incredible success of Canon’s 5D Mark II in the professional video market, it was inevitable that Nikon’s pro flagship would need to offer a more compelling feature set than the existing models.

Beyond this, the changes to the stills-shooting specifications are relatively modest – there’s a higher-resolution, 16.2MP, full-frame CMOS sensor and the ability to shoot at 10 frames per second with autofocus, but that’s about it. The new chip's capability has prompted Nikon to offer an ISO range from 100-12,800 that can then be extended to 50 – 204,800 (Hi4). The significant changes, beyond video, are a profusion of smaller tweaks, additions and improvements to what was already a well worked-out camera. These include a carbon fiber shutter rated to 400,000 actuations that can fire at up to 1/8000th of a second.

The biggest technical changes are the addition of a 91,000 pixel ‘metering’ sensor, replacing the 1005 pixel example used up until now. This sensor is used for much more than just metering, playing a key role in subject tracking, white balance and 'Active D-lighting' (a trick Canon seems impressed with, given the appearance of a similar system in the 1DX). The higher-resolution sensor allows the camera to offer face detection when shooting through the optical viewfinder.

Then there are the ergonomic changes to the camera’s body. Again like Canon’s 1DX, moves have been made to make the ergonomics of portrait-orientation shooting more closely resemble those of shooting in landscape format. The camera no longer features a dedicated AFL button, instead gaining push-button joysticks for both the vertical and landscape shooting orientations. An additional rubberized lump has also been added to provide a better grip in the vertical orientation and an additional function button added next to the vertical shutter button.

Um, any idea if those guys in London shot in RAW, I see no reference to RAW.

And they appear to be Nikon D3(sx) haters; they spend a good deal of time defending Canons. Sounding like those who think an Audi R8 is the same as Veyron. (Yes, I know the two cars have the same basic parent company, unlike the DSLRs.)

Look the D4 could be some disaster, though it's very unlikely. Much more is that the new Canon will have yet again serious deficiencies.

I am going to summarize the suggested improvements for those who can't be bothered to read that:1. in addition to face recognition the D4 should also have had nipple recognition which would've come handy for the paparazzi (yes, they really do say that)2. they should get rid of the buttons and replace them with a touch screen (yes, they do seriously suggest that too)3. err.. I stopped reading after that so those will have to suffice

photoboy73 I was going to accuse you of wasting 10 mins of my time, but you actually taught me something useful today: never visit photography-factory again.

I am not a pro photog, but after inheriting a slew of Nikkor lenses from my father, and taking a few photography classes in NYC, I decided in 2008 to invest in the Nikon D3 and have been shooting with it ever since. I paid no attention when the D3x and D3s came out b/c I knew the D3 is all I ever needed. Now, comes the Nikon D4 and a few features over my D3 intrigue me, as follows:

1) The D4 sensor has better light gathering capability into each of the 16.2 million pixels, which I understand will greatly enhance my photos over the D3s (I see Joe McNally's photos and they look fantastic);

2) The metering system is more accurate - this ability to ability to correctly expose my human subject w/o having to point and hold down the A/E lock to me is gold (if it works like advertised); and

3) The autofocus tracks subjects better b/c of the more points on the 3-D tracking matrix.

To me, these 3 added features plus the addition of full HD video really makes this a worthy upgrade for me.

The release of Canon 1DX tells us the life cycle of APS-H ends. We can see that high end DSLR product lines have been gradually migrating to FF/FX leaving APS-C as the middle/entry level products.

While D4 is a real update of the D3 (I don’t think it’s a D3Sx or D3Si), it’s nice to see the megapixel war has been slowed down. A 16MP FX sensor (or 18MP FF of 1DX) is a balance between quality and quantity. As a D700 user, if weight does not matter, I would get a D4. But 1340g is really a bit too much (for me).

Having read the intro. review [which was nicely done] and most all the following comments, I think I will continue to stay with my M6. These cameras do too much thinking for you, plus I never attended MIT.

Though I don't own an M6, I generally agree with your sentiments. This camera is probably a technological wonder, but I prefer something with basic controls and no on board AI. Also, I generally have no need for much over ISO400, so the amplification values available here would be wasted on me. Small size and weight, big sensor, and direct manual controls for me please.

So don't buy a D4 or even a DSLR. Who said you have to squander all your dollars on camera?

Modern pro 135 dslr has clearly different user/usage segment than Leica M. I own and use rangefinder and I love them. But that does not stop me picking up my 1-ton bag of Nikon for various assignments.

@yabokkie - Yes it can, and will be. Quality is there, the rest is photographer. Pick the right tool for the JOB. Circumstances are always the most important consideration. Look at Helmut Newton. He used to do a shoot with a blad, ser up the shot, took his readings, shot 3 of 12 frames and packed up. Pro.

This is exactly what I wanted (obviously, I don't need anything more than a D3). I don't want very high mega pixel. I want subtle improvements to the D3's AF module and I want improvement on high ISO performance of D3 (I am not referring to D3s but D3). I think, I get all of the 3. So, I am sold. Now it depends on how quickly B&H can fulfill my order ;-).

@mailman30: In our studios (4 or them) all photographers shoot with cameras connected to a computer. This way they can see the shot right away in a full magazine spread size. Quite clearly you have never visited a professional photo studio.

I think your find Mailman30 meant if you shoot on a card a pro most of the time will take the card out and put it into a card reader as there is less chance of data loss. Shooting tethered is totally different and that the D4 already has covered.

there is no data loss when using a card reader or a cable ..... how did data corruption got here ? :) tethered shooting doesn't need usb 3.0 and yes, for bulk transfer I think most people use a card reader, i do and i am no professional. it is just that spitting X GB of JPEG+RAW from the camera is not very practical because you can't use the camera, you discharge the battery and it is slower

Sorry Missimo for the pretentious replys and obviously you are not a pro or obviously you are a pro... I don't see in which point you say that you were one or not. But obviously some of the replyers are not proffetionals, because proffetionals don't write this way. Back to the cable...Yes proffetionals use cables from the camera to the computer, actually proffetionals had use all possible ways to transfer... Why?: because things go south more often that pros will like.In any case, yes it will be nice to have a fast USB connection, you have no idea how many times a card reader fail or the wireless connection don't work if you have one. So you are left with the on camera wired connection. Ad violins you are to a professional.... Hahahhaa that was funny.

I take lots of pictures with the D700, 55K so far. I use USB to download the images from the camera to the computer. This puts a lot less wear and tear on the CF card having to remove and install after using a card reader to download images.

My cards download at 65-74 megabyte per second from a FW800 reader and around 40/s in my $10 express card reader in my laptop. Why would I waste time or wear and tear on batteries to use the slot in the camera?

I've worked with professional in studios who shot tethered. Whenever I did the same work they were doing, I never wasted my time tethering. My results were the same or better, but I spent less time at it. YMMV.

The only professional I worked with who I consider a skilled professional with work I respect, only shot tethered when he was using a betterlight back (no choice there!)

I've been using DSLRs professionally for 8 years and I have never had an issue with the pins in card reader or a CF card. They are designed for repeated insertion and removal. I've seen people break them, but I've also seen people destroy a manual transmission. I don't think the issue is the gear in either case. Mini USB ports are notoriously flimsy, but only because they are subject to...

...catastrophic failure that comes from user error (see: "I tripped over the cord!").

I've noticed a trend of users who shoot Canon in the studio like tethering and Nikon users don't. Nikon has always had a great UI for reviewing and inspecting images in camera. Canon's UI has historically been incredibly laggy, even on their top end models.

With 3" screens and current camera speeds (Canon's playback has come a long way and is at parity in my opinion) there's really no need for tethering anymore. Some old timers still insist on it, but that's a shortcoming on their part, not good technique or a shortcoming of the gear.

to shaocaholica: I am a professional, in fact I shoot for the new york times so I am surprised by your comment. Every single professional I know uses card readers so why by my comment would you assume I am not?

to petka: although I am a newpaper photographer I do have studio experience and have shot tethered myself. I just don't see usb 3 as an important upgrade, even shooting raw with a 1ds mk iii the photos pop up almost instantly over usb 2.0.

There were some good comments made about shooting tethered and I suppose usb 3 could help there but I would personally use the ethernet connection to shoot tethered but usb 2.0 would also be more than enough for speed.

In the end a card reader is many times faster than using the camera, I would rather put wear and tear on a card reader then a 6000 dollar camera, and there is battery life to think about as well.

As always giving us the very best advise for both our jobs and pockets. Just wondering??? how much better!! than D3s on high ISO, i shoot birds in Costa Rica's rainforest, therefore low light in comes in the package on my country. Could you please advise over this matter. ( by the way hope i made myself understood, since its not my first language.GraciasRandall Ortega Chaves

Nikon has a very specific market for this camera. The Nikon D4 is for very-busy photojournalists and documentary photographers... primarily. The big newspapers will buy a dozen or more for their staff. Some event photographers who only want the best will also buy in.

This camera is also for photographers who have to get the shot period. You are a big-time fashion or wildlife photographer. Yes, this camera can take the sand, snow, dirt and rain during that $50k a week shoot. You are the man and need the best tools that won't let you down.

If you are shooting weddings at $800 a pop or you get an occasional gig, I would save your money. You don't need a brick of a camera. A Sony SLT-A77 kit would suffice.

If you want to be pretentious or burn money on a camera that will never be used to its fullest capacity, this camera is also for you.

The D4 has several key attributes and I will list them in importance: 1) Access to Nikon lenses. 2) A tough as nails workhorse 3) State of the art.

"This camera is also for photographers who have to get the shot period. " ----------> So what other photographers do, they do not want to get the shot. They just turn away and do not take the shot. I wonder how photographers did all these decades without D4. Its a great tool but you sound too condescending specially with words like this: "If you are shooting weddings at $800 a pop or you get an occasional gig, I would save your money. " Yaa right.

my d3 and now ex-d3x ( sold the d3x a couple of months ago for $7k ) were perfect for weddings, i'd only use the d3x for a couple of large group shots outdoors and the centre wedding album spread which was 4 large pages wide - single shot from the d3x would cover that nicely - whereas the d3 could not do that due to lack of res. couldn't use the d3x as fast as i use the d3 though - the d3 was and still is perfectly fine.. however i've moved away from doing $5k+ weddings and totally into video now..

so my choices are a d4 $6k with a ninja $1.5k and/OR a JVC 4K video camera for $5k.

only complaint about these rigs is the weight after 12hours of carrying both around - they get very very heavy after a few hours of shooting.. so if i was still shooting high end weddings - i'd be looking at the lighter d700 or whatever comes next.. might be called a d800? -

and if that has the same clean video out - i'll buy a couple for sure.. just for the clean video out... The d4 just has this very nice film like look to the video feed - and the in body crop is excellent also ( just like the d3x did crops for dx and 5:4 modes also but stills ) so i know that the crop modes are very useful !

The JVC 4k video camera is perfect for my needs as I can crop a full HD from the massive 4K images.. perfect for punches and steady cam & jib use :)

When the d800 comes out and if it has the clean hdmi out - I'll put up a video clip of me throwing... no full on smashing my canon bodies against a brick wall haha..

however ... if the d800 doesn't have in body crop and clean HDMI out - then I'll buy a couple of GH2's along with the JVC instead.

Henry, you are hilarious! You call Nikon a rather small company, and then you say they are unlikely to bring out a medium format camera. Do you know who makes medium format cameras? Do you think Sony, HP or GE are making medium format cameras? lol No, it is little companies, like Hasselblad and Mamiya, not big companies like Canon and (to an extent) Nikon, or monsters like Sony. You do realize that Nikon makes all sorts of products that are not cameras, right? Have you ever been to Nikon.com?

O'Henry-Nikon is one of the companies of the Mitsubishi Group, a private company with US$248,600,000.00 in revenue for 2010.If going medium format makes good business sense, they can. For all who think the flooding of the Nikon factory in Thailand will force Nikon out of business, they have the backing of the Mitsubishi Group to get them up and running again.

had my d3 since new - dropped it a million times - ( and on my toes :( ouches ) .. dropped from 3meters up onto sharp rocks.. still not a scratch.. so don't worry about the screen - it's tuff as. mine has paint chips all over but the screen looks as good as new still.. wish they made the entire body from that glass stuff - then i wouldn't have a mark on it haha!

sorry, man 3 meters on a rock and no scratch, i dont believe that^^ i dropped a d700 1 meter, backcase broken, a d3 around shoulderheight, also concrete mirrorbox had a crack, af motor had to be adjusted, bajonett had to be adjusted, and i lost a 20 2.8d :)

Nice but expensive camera. I think I would opt for the new Canon 18mp machine over this however. Actually, I still use my Mamiya RZ67 and my 4x5 Sinar P along with an Epson 700 scanner for a variety of work. I don't get the dynamic range of a good digital SLR and clearly there is some quality lost in going from analog film to digital for final printing, but there is plenty of resolution and for studio or architectural shots, there are times when I prefer this approach. It forces me to compose more carefully and meter more intelligently than I might if I just used a DSLR. My main camera is a Canon 5D2, but like all tools it has limitations and when I have time and a specific application for medium or large format images, film can still make sense.

While I do appreciate and respect your opinion, I still don't get why would you even access a website called Digital Photography Review or, viewing an article about a DSLR, when you only use film and clearly don't care about DSLR's.

the DSLR's massive improvement over last few years has narrowed the image quality difference between two systems. I have the V system for studio stuff and landscape. Last summer, I printed a 20X24" taken from D3s with excellent quality that can fool many experts as it was taken from medium format. To me, quality is not really a issue, rather the price is..

Sorry @Scottelly and @ColdViking but I don't know about Canon models, this comment basically says that this camera doesn't fit his needs and, he would rather buy a Canon. Well, that's just common sense, if you're a "pro", we know that if you only shoot Canon, Why change to Nikon and have to invest in lenses all over again?

To me, it just sounds like somebody that doesn't care about Nikon products, only Canon's. There are other places/forums to comment about Canon if that's your preference. "Meh" comments are not needed.

so you always switch system whe you buy new system cameras? last year a canon with a fine set of primes, and if you dont like it the next year a nikon with a set of glass? or how exactly do you plan to do this? are you only using one zoom?^^

I am a bit surprised about this camera. If it is used for studio photography imo i think an 18- 22 mp would be better as to upgrade from 12 mp is not that much and in terms of sports you need a long lens like 600 F4 or else you need to crop. Maybe it is good for low light photography that would be nice.

I'm curious why the lcd is non move-able, I'm no pro but I find it one of the best upgrades from the a700 to the a77, especially when the camera adds video. Probably the market does not need it, but it beats me as to why not.

While I understand your point, a swivel LCD that can close in on itself provides much more protection against hard knocks than an exposed stationary LCD.

Hugo has a valid question. Shrugging off his question and those cameras with swivel LCDs as "amateur toys" comes across as being rather dismissive. A good photographer respects the fact that his/her skills are what make a great photo, not the camera. The reality is, there are many photographers, who use "amateur toy" cameras, who will consistently take better photos than most people who end up purchasing this $6000.00 D4.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just trying to set the record straight... :0)

No offense meant with "amateur toys". Running around with 2 or 3 camera bodies hitting against each other and whatever is what this class of cameras are designed for. No time flipping the LCDs open and closed. Sorry, have been doing this since -78. There are situations when a flip-out screen would come in handy, I am first to admit that, but I would still no get one for serious press work.

i less thing to break off or fail. the oly e3 had issues with moisture entering the lcd. it also adds considerable bulk to the camera, esp. if you are going to weatherise it to match the rest of the camera. lastly, no one(who is going to buy one) is demanding it.

I am with you: a tiltable screen would be a great addition to this camera. They can be made quite reliable even if you carry your camera all day long as proved by Olympus cameras. Yes even so it is still one more thing which could break. So does the metering, autofocusing, top lcd screen (I've broken on a D200, not precisely a flimsy camera), etc so let's all use cameras with manual metering and focusing, no top lcd, less buttons etc. These issues of reliability evades the true debate: is it useful? More importantly, are there shots which I would miss because I don't have this feature. The answer is definitely "yes". IMO that's what matters to a true photographer at heart (pro or amateur). As for reliablity, the solutions is a back-up camera, not removal of a key feature.

I suspect that many pros have not spent much time using a tilt-swivel screen, as they haven't long been available on DSLRs. It's a very useful device, and once you've used one, you'll want one.War photographers taking shots around corners or over a concrete shelter without risking their head, press photographers aiming over crowds, those that use video, using Liveview on a very high tripod, shooting from ground level without having to sprawl...Yes, you can live without one, but yes, you will find it useful...

At my art school, (San Francisco Art Institute) I attended a summer session with a visiting artist Imogene Cunningham - a legendary photographer. Some of her BEST work was taken with a plastic lens throwaway camera. She insisted that the photographs were about the moment and the photographer, NEVER about the camera. It's great to have a reality check, and a level perspective about the tools we use.

shooting weddings - a tilt screen would be great for all those arms held up high to get the group shots shots that i do - i shoot blind and although i seem to do fine most of the time - even with the 14mm on it i would like to be able to take just the one shot and know I've got everyones head in the shots - a tilt screen would be perfect for that shot.. but i'd hate myself if i broke the screen off after a drop - and i drop it a lot lol... screens glass is tuff as and has never even scratched on it..

After reading (some of) these posts it is quite clear that people writing them are not professional photographers, experienced photographers, or even photographers at all. Just gadget enthusiasts. Amazing lack of technical knowledge (why is bigger sensor better?) and real life action/news photography experience (iPhone can take just as good pictures).

Both D4 and EOS-D1X will be amazing cameras, best that is possible at the moment, and I will be getting one of them as soon as possible. It will help me to take better pictures, not so much because of super sensor but faster and more responsive autofocus, better low light sensitivity and high fps. These are the things that really count, not MegaPixels, missing Bluetooth, GPS etc. Do I need to get my shots immediately to social media, hell no! I need to have a camera which enables me to complete my assignment in the dark rain of real life with pictures fit for a full spread in a glossy magazine.

Well that's the funny thing, because the tools of 'gadget freaks' make their way up to pro models just as often as visa versa. My first digital compact, the Canon S40 had video, it's only recently that DSLRs have needed to have this to sell at all (admittedly, with much better quality). Serious cameras avoided even being associated with the likes of face detection AF, which is now being toted as one of the D4's 'killer features'.

There is certainly a line between innovative gadget and state of the art technology, a lot of it being in the raw performance, efficiency and build quality involved, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss innovative features. It wasn't so long ago that AF, or even digital capture itself was considered strictly for amateurs. These are incredible cameras, but in many ways very conservatively featured. They don't have a monopoly on what constitutes a photographically useful feature, even if in sheer hardware they make for very reliable and efficient photography.

bigger sensors of course have less noise, as the .. oh i forget the technical jargon.. pixel buckets dont overflow onto neighbouring buckets. with smaller sensors there is less interference between those... uh.. photo receptors...

Well put - I agree - Low light indoor sports is my main venue, and events that do not allow flash. The faster focus, higher ISO and increased presets interest me most. 1-2 additional FPS will not make that much difference. I will definitely test these features before buying.

How long will the D4 stay before the next one will come 2 or 3 years. What will the P&S camera's and other DSLR's and mobilephone's brands do durings those 2 or 3 years. Innovation will continue. Has this one a bluetooth inside to communicate with Camera remote apps (Android/IOS) to send your jpeg file immediate to social media ? I've seen (holded) the Canon EOS 1DX. I'm not impressed by the latest flagships of Canon and Nikon. Hopefully Panasonic+Leica don't fall asleep. Just wondering. Marcel.

If you read the specification and examples the whole camera can be controlled remotely on any device with a web browser.

The camera has its own http server so you can take the pic, including focus, save, transfer and upload with out touching the camera.So no need for bluetooth or even an app its all there, just add the wireless receiver to the camera, or plug in an Ethernet cable.

AnHund . . . "social media and other gimmicks." Are you serious? You think social media is a gimmick? You can't possibly be serious. That would be a ridiculous statement, considering the viewership/user base. Do you realize how many people use social media as their primary form of entertainment and communication today? Do you have any idea how fast social media is growing? Do you realize this site, which YOU are using, has significant social media components? This site is a hybrid social media and product review site. Do you realize that? Are you an ostrich?

It simply amazes me on what specific feature a camera is touting/missing that gets people in a frenzy. From "we want a optical viewfinder" on compact systems to "LiveView and video capabilities are stupid" on FF cameras.

Insert another gripe: "We want GPS!"...

The stubborn photographer who pines about a "proper VF" will no doubt cry over "my old Nikon F3/ Canon A-1 took great photos without any GPS". A pen and paper was good enough plotting down your location.

I'll add to the list: "My Canon 7D has accelerometers for leveling...why doesn't this have it?!"....or "my smart phone has a touch screen! Why not this?!"

You're right! Why DOESN'T this expensive camera have all those things? No . . . it doesn't need them. Neither does a cell phone. But the iPhone is outselling every other phone, because it DOES have those things. GPS? (not quite, but it gives the basic functionality of a GPS in most locations here in the U.S.) A touch screen? Yes. An accellerometer? Yes. Video? Yes. Wireless networking? Yes. And a whole slew of other features. Does a cell phone really need these things? No. But it's nice to have them. Do Nikon cameras really need 14 bit color or in-camera image editing or interval timer shooting abilities? No. It's nice that they do though, right? It would be nice if they had ALL the cool stuff that they could have, but don't, like a heads-up display in the viewfinder, faster video (1080p60), a built-in solid state hard drive, wireless N networking, and SO MANY other features that Sony cameras will eventually have. So why not beat Sony and Canon to the extra features? All of them.

If have a question I have been wondering about for a while?I have a D7000 DX body. And the D4 FX body has practically the same specs in regards to sensor resolution and sensor megapixel size. Yet the D4 has a larger sensor that leaves me with the question, "What is the real advantage with the larger sensor size?" For me a larger and heavier body and compatible lenses is no real advantage. Regards PhotoPhill

In addition, all digital photography should know and understand that sensor size does matter. The larger the sensor, the more light that is able to hit the sensor, thus ending with a better quality image in most cases. This is why compact camera systems will never match the quality of a DSLR, and to take it a step further try a medium format system and your mind will be blown.

Really? LOL.. Sound like the Noob's at the camera stores taking up the clerk's time with stilly questions while the real pro's are trying to get in and out buying their equipment. Try doing some research... However, in response to your question.. Better depth of field for one thing on the bigger full frame sized sensor. As the other poster said, go rent a D700 and see. D700 only has 12mp but can get better pics than the 16mp D7000 esp indoors, no flash. I've used both.

as Pro photographer & BSc Photo science - the larger sensor has a number of advantages, one the individual pixel are larger - trying to cram all of those pixels into a smaller format has disadvantages in terms of the 'quality' of the sensor. Regarding the comment about depth of field and sensor size- total nonsense depth of field is a function of the focal length of the lenses and aperture only - I have seen a similar comment elsewhere no idea where it derives from but it is total nonsense.

No nonsense at all I think! The proportion between object and picture (sensor size) has also influence on depth of field. Take the same shot with a FF camera with 50 mm f 2.0 and a APS-C camera with 35 mm f 2.0 and you will discover less DOF on the first one (with a smaller sensor you have to mount a smaller focus length to get the same angle of view). That's the reaseon why compacts with a tiny sensor takes pictures with everything sharp and also why macro shots has no DOF at all left with full aperture (the proportion has become 1:1). DOF is a function of focal length, aperture, distance and sensor size.

In some ways the full-frame sensor is NOT betteer Phil. It depends on what you are using the camera for. Will you be shooting with long lenses? Keep your D7000. Do you need to shoot in low light with small apertures, because you are trying to get multiple objects into focus? Then you will need to shoot at high ISO settings, and you should get a D700 or D4 or some other full-frame camera. The ultimate camera right now (for low ISO shooting) is a camera with a small sensor. It is the Sigma SD1. It is capable of capturing the best image quality of any camera that can shoot fast (5 fps or faster). It has its limitations though, as does every camera. No camera is perfect for every purpose.

@tresise & henricoo: I think you're both right. DOF is a function of absolute focal length, aperture and subject distance. 50 mm f2.0 will give the same DOF regardless of sensor size, but with different angle of view, of course.If, however, we're talking about equivalent focal length, then DOF is a function of sensor size too. 50 mm (equivalent) f2.0 will give larger DOF the smaller the sensor is, but the angle of view will be the same.

henricoo ... DOF has nothing to do with sensor size .. :)))Its just the equation. Its because you need less focal length to give you equivalent focal length on film. This illusion you are getting is because for same angle of view focal length is much much smaller on compacts than fullframe.similarly actual aperture size on big sensor camera is bigger physically to lit bigger sensors. All confusion you are getting is because they are different sensor sizes, so their actual focal lengths are different. otherwise on exactly the same focal lengths, sensor size doenst matter to get DOF. understood?

Naveed, of course, that's clear to me. A lens does not know what sensor is in behind. What I try to explain is the bigger the sensor, the easier it is to achieve smal DOF with lenses that project a similar angle of view. When you take a picture with FF it is easier to isolate an object than using a compact with a much smaller sensor (and a lens with a much smaller focus length), using the same aperture. So full frame is in advantage to achieve smal DOF over APS-C. Just because you can use lenses with longer focal length. That's what this topic was about isn't it?

1. d200 and 18-200 for weddings - no stress no bad back2. d3 and 35kg's of glass - = very tired and sore after 8-9 hours shooting straight..

stick with the dx and be happy :) wish i stuck with the smaller rigs in some ways but image qual is what fx is all about and doesn't compare with dx .. honestly think most brides n grooms probably wouldn't spot the difference though - as none complained about the d200 wedding albums i used to make.. apart from me.. lol

Here we go again a new model comes out and we get the usual fan boy bun fight over Canon V Nikon. The funny part of this is REAL photographers don't give a S%$£ and here's why. A REAL photographer knows how to "make a photograph" with any camera and could get equally fantastic results with an entry level or a top spec Nikon, Canon or in fact Sony/Pentax etc.

It's the "all the gear no idea" crowd that spoil this site with the tit for tat garbage every time. Take some advice, stop spitting insults at each other, pick up your gear and go take pictures. That way at least you might come to realise that it's the skill and the eye of the person wielding the camera that captures the image which will turn heads not the camera on its own!

Your example doesn't reflect what xl5 is conveying. I don't think a "real photographer" would make posters from 6400ASA film.

You need to stay within the bounds of each camera's limit. Entry level cameras can take good photos even without 51 AF or 6400 ISO usability. You would be suggesting this "real photographer" would try to make 30" prints from heavily compressed JPEGs on a P&S camera.

Even the dumb iPhone (or any smart phone now) can take a decent photo. You just have to compose and have proper lighting (stay in ISO 100) and steady the camera. But don't try to make posters out of your phone.

The higher end cameras won't make better photos, but take better photos in less than ideal situations/environments (low lighting, rain, fast action).

I never said one couldn't take good photos with a P&S. (I would say it's pretty hard to make a good 12"x16" print from 300KB jpeg though.)

Since you missed it: My point about 16"x24" prints from 6400 ASA colour film was that such a possibility didn't really exist with 35mm film. (Yes, I know one could do it, but there'd be huge grain problems, and then likely focus ones too.) Now someone (even a "real photographer" whom you claimed wouldn't do such a thing) can take those photos in a dark theatre or a nightclub and use them. Good luck doing that with a Canon G12 sans flash--and I have some really good 12"x18" daylight photos done with my Canon G2, the 4MP camera.

HMMM as a 'REAL' photographer with 35 year experience of the photo industry, (analogue and digital) good quality equipment allows me to take the images I want to the standard and quality I require. Low grade entry level cameras particularly lenses simple don't have the quality. That why there are pro cameras and amateur cameras. At a recent show of wildlife photography at the V&A all of the images except 3 had been taken on Canon and Nikon equipment.So as a REAL photographer I do care a great deal what I use.

and you missed my point about using your cameras within the scope of their limits. You can't expect a G12 with a pop-up flash to take good photos in a theatre. Yes it could do it, but not well. That's why "real photographers" (using OP's wording) would use a higher grade camera that does better with noise to do it.

"don't think" =/= claim...I never claimed he wouldn't, but probably not since, as you mentioned, lots of grain.

What do I think "real photographers" do (OP's wording, again)?: Well like BMWX5 mentioned, they stay within the limit of their cameras. If THAT camera doesn't meet the specific needs of the task, then bring out something that will. Hence why you don't bring an iPhone to do the Superbowl coverage for your newspaper.

It works the other way around too: If you need to take a photo of a recipe to email to your sister, a pocket camera/phone will suffice. You don't need to pull out the full studio with 8 flashes and a 24MP pro camera to do that.

I agree with xl5 about his comments,if you are a dedicated photographer shot and compose yourself.Quit the P's and Q's and all that #$%^& about this camera and that. Mr.photophill,are you a snob or a real photographer.Get a life and try other cameras and you'll see why this Pro cameras are there and not for the faint of heart people like you.Wake up,Hello there...........get with the programs guys........sounds like little bitches on PMS..........Every camera from A to Z will get you the best photo's that is best for that model....IF....YOU KNOW HOW TO PHOTOGRAPH or just tick off ppl here to get your rocks off..........nuff said...........my 1 cent said and done......for those un-educated morons with nothing to do but bash at the FORUMS...........GET A LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're very good at misinterpreting and accusing people of things they don't/didn't say or do. You used "real photographers" condescendingly, I followed suit. I really don't want to spell everything out for you if you didn't understand that.

When I said "bring out something that will", I didn't think I would need to specifically mention your blessed Messiah Nikon D3s (I could have easily mentioned the Canon 1Dmk4, but that would still have made you cry).

HowaboutRAW, how about you stop being immature child and go do something productive instead of commenting on darn near everyone's post you don't agree with. You really waste a lot of space with your attempts to just be indifferent. Why don't you go shoot yourself (with a camera, of course).

So all "REAL photographers" use old crappy cameras, and they don't care what features the new ones have, right dumb-ass? I guess you're here, because you are not a "REAL photographer" huh? If you were a "REAL photographer" you would be out shooting with your 4 megapixel Olympus, not giving a crap about the equipment you use, right?

The D4 must be the biggest mistake Nikon have made to date.Its not everyone who wants a movie mode stuck on to a stills camera. The number of times movie mode is use is fractional compared the stills option. Those serious in making movies will get a camcorder anyway.Nikon cut out movie mode option make it stills only.and then the price can be drastically reduced. Listen to the amateur photographer not the pro and get things right.

I use a Canon 60D and have found the external mics problematic on camera. I now use the onboard mic audio as a 'reference' audio to serve for placement of audio gathered from Zoom H4s or lavaliers that are closer to the subject or other sources

It is fairly common for pro video cameras to come with a single mono XLR mic. The expectation in the pro space is for top level quality you will be using, at minimum, an aftermarket pro microphone or second system sound. And the microphones used for final production audio will be placed a lot closer than sitting on top of the camera.

I switched to Nikon when the D700 came out. I don't know how it would compare to the Sonys. We'll have to wait for some real samples but I don't see it as really an improvement on whats already on the market for the past 4 years.

Most of these MPEG-4 & AVCHD Long GOP interframe codecs are at 17Mb/sec to 24Mb/sec capture bitrate for video. For instance, with Sony and Panasonic now, it is 24Mb/sec unless you do 60p and double the frame numbers per second, and then it only goes up by a meager 4Mb/sec. With the $6,000 Nikon D4, the rate it is "up to" 24Mb/sec, ha-ha-ha-ha!!! All Long GOP codec, which is pretty bad.

Which makes the totally different Nick Driftwood and similar "hacks" into the Panasonic GH-series cameras and some other cameras really only sensible choice to make for top-flight codec. Instead of interframe, you would intraframe (i-frame), and your video bitrate would be somewhere around 155 to 176Mb/sec, instead of 17 to 24Mb/sec. Huge difference.

People used to brag about their Omega watches as "Nasa's choice" for space missions.. Once I tell them Astronaut Gene Vernan wore a cheap Lorus Mickey Mouse watch to space they shut up. All Nikon fan-boys should shut up about Nasa as well. Any camera would make it. I have as many broken Nikon gear as working.

NASA has very specific requirements which have little to do with reliability in general, and a lot to do with the camera being able in an environment with no gravity. Example: cameras as specified by NASA cannot contain specific lubricants which are used in all dSLRs (except the D3s). Until recently all the cameras NASA used were custom-made by the manufacturer for that reason (except the Nikon D3s), and very few camera manufacturers are unwilling to custom-make to NASA's specific requirements. Hence the choice of Nikon. Of course Nikon's willingness to work with NASA is a very smart marketing move on its part.So now here is the real question: is the D4 - successor of the D3s - also built off the shelf to NASA's specifications ? Don't know if you've noticed but Nikon makes no statement to that effect anywhere.

Hey guys, thanks for commenting. I would like to add more to my comment. I would like to point that I am not associated with Nikon and that I don't use their equipment (I use Olympus).I doubt that other manufacturers can't meet NASA specifications, but there is much more to it. Up there lubricants aren't the only thing that counts, there is a lot of radiation, many users, constant changing of lenses, zero-g dust (susceptible to attraction by static electricity). etc. Equipment up there absolutely _must_ not fail. It amazes me that no one commented on 400.000 actuations claim, for me that is insane. Hasselblad was fine, but was cumbersome to operate. There were other cameras, and FF DSLR won as best from all worlds. It seems to me that Nikon is not superior per se, but that they have better quality control and software department. Soft dept is probably the main reason why they wipe competitions ISO performance related.

Unless your eyes are really bad- use the diopter to change the viwewfinder to match your eye prescription - I find it works very well, and others do not borrow my camera because it always looks blurred to them. that way you will be able to see all the info you want.

Why does Sony give us great innovative feature and Nikon doesn't give us focus peeking or anything? And how long has it taken for them to have face tracking? All point-and-shoots have had it a for a while now. And I don't mean the fake tracking they advertized in the D90.

It seems another great camera from Nikon! A very good thing's that it looks like they've been listening to their users. Anyway I think those cameras ( D3s, D4, 1D x, ... ) are too heavy for my liking, I'm actually anxious to see the coming new Sony FF "A99", I hope lighter than my current A900 and with all features I need!

Full size sensor takes its toll, and I assume they made it as small as possible with state-of-the-art technology while including all those features (how many different connections are there?). I you do not need them there are fortunately many good smaller cameras to choose from. I presently use Canon 5DII mostly, and even with the added size and weight these new top bodies would make my work easier (=better).

I just bought this camera (waiting for delivery, on the list, money down). I am extremely excited about all the functions, I have been waiting for the video to upgrade for so long I am still using my D2x. I work in the music industry and spend a lot of time shooting shows and backstage, the lit buttons are enough for me to buy this unit, but the high iso's and low noise are out of this world. I don't care about the "card issues" SO you have to put out some more cash for the BETTER technology, what else is new, you will have to do it sooner or later anyway. My Nikons have always been a GREAT investment and have paid for themselves over and over again. GRAB ONE!!!

The extra controls for vertical shooting aren't needed. Why is a rectangular sensor still being used? Switch to a square sensor and either crop later, or in-camera with viewfinder masks, or whenever. Square also obviously captures more of the image from the lens--info. that is lost for no reason. Any possible reason not to do this, other than a slightly bigger sensor? (Though not necessarily). I don't think so, other than lack of thought.

It would actually be a 50% larger sensor. 36mmx36mm. The way semiconductors work this would raise the sensor cost by more than 2X. That could very well be $1000 or more prior to manufacturing. That's one reason why there are no larger sensor cameras under $15K or so.

OMG - Buy a Blad man. Human beings eyes see in rectangles. Magazine pages are rectangular. Billboards, rectangular. Nearly every still image we see is rectangular. Square has always been the exception, not the rule. Few images look better in square. For those occasions there are enough megapixels to crop.

In my very experienced opinion Nikon has just taken another huge step in their continual search for perfection. I look forward to owning it.

The human eye doesn't see in "rectangles". A round eye sees in...wait for it...ovals (not perfectly round). Since we have two eyes in horizontal, we see more peripheral than we do above or below us. So your "magazine ads" wouldn't work either since they are vertically taller than what you can naturally see.

By your logic, if we had a third eye on our forehead, we'd see in "triangles".

"Few images look better in square". And fewer images look better in 16x9 crops. Too much wasted space on the sides that only detract from the subject/focus of the photo. Why movies insist on even cropping to wider (1.85:1) is beyond me.

4x6 just starts to cut out the distortion on the edges, while 5x7 works best (for me).

Interesting,photo beside new model will better than beside D3S,but so on parameter he nearly copy Canon EOS 1D X. If amount of the noise will become below than beside Nikon D3S ,then I shall say- Nikon-best!!!!!!!!!

It's not that the 1DX won't focus with f/8 lenses, the central block of AF sensors will not function as "cross type" on lenses slower than f/5.6. At f/8, you will still have horizontal sensitivity. I wish people would stop jumping to that conclusion. 9 out of 10 situations, this will be acceptable. If you, or anyone is the type of person who find this to be a problem, there is no camera that will ever completely satisfy you.

IMO, on paper the 1DX is a better camera. I agree that this opinion will remain to be proven or disproven when the two are compared side-by-side. At this level, there will be little to differentiate these two cameras.

not sure why there is a need for debate. how many first-time dslr shooters are going to go for one of these.. none. so, if youre a nikon shooter, you get the nikon, if youre a canon shooter, you get the canon.

It's not a better camera if the IQ of previous Canon cameras vs. the Nikon alternatives is any indication. The Nikon D3x, and D3 have better high ISO, DR and basically, better sensors. This is a fact. All the bells and whistles don't mean a thing if IQ is not there.

Canon is sure being secretive about the 1DX, where Nikon D4 already has video samples on Vimeo, and it looks excellent.

I try to stay away from absolute statements from an armchair perspective when I describe what I think about a camera. Everything is relative, opinions withstanding. I can however say that I respectfully disagree with your statement about the D3x, in terms of high-ISO capability as compared with even the 5DII. But that's just because I actually shoot canon cameras, as opposed to pixel peeping sample images on the web. I have shot nikon as well, and agree that the D3 and D3s both have better performance in that respect. But they are of course, roughly half the resolution. Which is why the debate is often rhetorical. You're comparing tools used for different purposes using the same standard, which illegitimizes your position. As I wrote, on paper the 1DX is a better camera. There should be no debate there until canon releases the 1DX for scrutiny.

@HowaboutRAW For nearly double the resolution, the 5DII's lowlight capability is a relative tradeoff. While we're on the subject, lets not overlook the D3x in lowlight compared to the 5DII. That nikon fails against a junior camera in every case. Just sayin...

The toggles are necessary, and make it possible (AT LAST) to use a Nikon vertically,to alter focus points with your thumb.Like the R1 though it should be anywhere inside the image.

I can absolutely guarantee that nobody worthy of the title "photographer" is involved in the design of these machines. A 1D Canon with a 24-70mm zoom has the same weight as a 5lb bag of potatoes.The D4 is almost as bad And neither company even provides an ergonomic strap. a remote release, a case, a detachable screen, a rear-screen viewfinder, a decent mic or headphones, so you cannot buy one and use it for video anyway.

You have to spend at least another how much, delighting retailers who just adore you for your stupidity, when a Canon 60D with take HD videos just as good anyway, or a G2 Panasonic at a fraction of the weight and cost.

Re "Sony managed to squeeze 24mp into an APSC sized sensor, and retain very good ISO performance. ... " ha ha ha ha ha ha...., I wish it was true. I own an A77 ... ha ha ha .... ". The A77 is a lovely camera and with some useful bells and whistles that the D4 lacks. BUT a year from now I anticipate selling my years long acquired Minolta / Sony stable and buying a D800. Will wait for the early adopters to adopt and price to stabilise. A77 has much to investigate. But my 6 MP 7D Minolta has lower noise!. A77 - "very good high ISO performance ...". Alas no. Very sadly no. Terribly horribly no. HDR / DRO / 6 shots merged night mode, more - not a patch on an A700. Marvellous camera. But at ISO 800 it is starting to show its noisiness. At 6400 ISO, where a D700 starts to get a wee bit noisy an A77 is unusable.

More about gear in this article

NASA astronaut Jeff Williams posted a video detailing some of the equipment he uses to capture Earth from the ISS. So what kind of specialized gear does one use in space? Turns out the crew uses 'regular photography equipment' like the Nikon D4. Read more

It's telling that DPR regular Christopher Michel corresponded about this piece while en route to Antarctica. He considers freelance photography his third career, one that has taken him to the proverbial ends of the earth and beyond. From a U-2 spy plane to the North Pole, he's searched all over for stories and images that inspire. See some of his work here and find out more about him in our Q&A. Read more

Laurent Baheux began in photography as a sports writer and photojournalist before a safari to Tanzania in 2002 changed his life. There he fell in love with photographing the exotic animals of Africa, preferring a fine art approach that gives his wildlife images a portrait-like quality. Read more

With nearly thirty years of photography as well as almost ninety countries under his belt, travel, editorial and reportage photographer Mark Edward Harris has dedicated his eye to capturing life. His career in photography began as a still shooter for the Merv Griffin Show, but it was a four month trek through Asia when the show ended that first ignited his true love; travel photography. Read more about Harris' photography as well as his tips on traveling light in our Q+A. See gallery

In the aftermath of Andy Murray's historic victory at Wimbledon 2013, Nikon UK has been explaining how its cameras were used in a robotics setup to capture images from unique angles during the championship. The system was developed in partnership with Mark Roberts Motion Control, and operated by photographer Bob Martin. It used a Nikon D4 mounted on the roof above Centre Court, with 200-400mm and 80-400mm lenses. Click through to see some of the resultant images.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.